Since January, it appears that Denmark has been recording Taiwanese in the country who need resident permits as “Chinese.” We in Taiwan Corner have also seen writing describing Taiwanese as “citizens of China with a Taiwanese passport.” In this way, Denmark’s “one China policy” seems to be moving closer to China’s “one China principle.” Even if there has been no actual policy movement, there has certainly been confusion. Denmark, having stumbled into this difficulty, must answer this important question.
The significance of addressing this issue has been underscored by the reaction from Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen. The minister responded after the Danish newspaper Berlingske, and people in Denmark and Taiwan all drew public attention to the registering of Taiwanese as Chinese.
Rasmussen said that he would investigate the reason for this and what other like-minded countries do. He would then see if an alternative solution could be found which is in line with Denmark’s “one China policy.”
Rasmussen’s response can be tentatively viewed as a positive sign, suggesting the potential reinstatement of designations that recognize Taiwanese residents in Denmark as such — an outcome favored by the Taiwanese community there.
One could fear that because Denmark has moved toward Beijing’s “one China principle,” it would be harder to quickly go back to registering Taiwanese as “Taiwanese” due to fear of a possible angry response from China.
It shows how easy it is for governments around the world to stumble into unnecessary controversy, from which they will find it difficult to roll back.
This leads to a discussion of other alternative solutions and unacceptable designations. These include the meaningless “Chinese Taipei,” which is used typically at sporting events, or even worse, “Taiwan, China” or “Taiwan, province of China.” Another possibility is to not list any nationality at all for Taiwanese, leaving a blank and undetermined space.
All this is speculation, of course, but it is worrying that the Danish foreign ministry’s Web site says that in China, Denmark has representative offices in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Taipei. Rasmussen said, according to Berlingske newspaper, that the decision to register Taiwanese as Chinese was not decided by his ministry. However, it must have been set by officials somewhere in the Danish government system, and we can assume that the text of its official Web site was decided by the Danish foreign ministry.
The pretext for registering Taiwanese as “Chinese” appears to be that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under international law. However, Denmark allows persons from Palestine to be registered with the birthplace and designation “Palestine” following a law from late 2021, even though Denmark does not recognize Palestine.
The question that remains unanswered is what the precise reason was for changing the registration policy for Taiwanese — a decision affecting 24 million people’s nationality and angering many Taiwanese in Denmark. An impact analysis seems to be missing here. Did they think such a change would be uncontroversial and not merit proper review?
Taiwan has been garnering substantial international support, being recognized as a vibrant democracy facing threats from China and possessing considerable economic significance globally.
Meanwhile, Denmark’s preoccupation with the classification of Taiwan diverts from potentially more productive engagements, such as fosteringexpanding relations with Taiwan.
The current geopolitical situation in the world demands a better use of our time.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
The victory of Vice President William Lai (賴清德) in January’s presidential election raised questions about the future of China’s unification strategy toward Taiwan. A decade ago, the assumption in Bejing had been that deepening economic ties with Taiwan would bring about a political accommodation eventually leading to political integration. Not only has this not happened, but it hastened the opposite. Taiwanese are more concerned with safeguarding their political independence than they have ever been. China’s preferred party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has not won a presidential election since 2012. Clearly, Beijing’s strategy is not working. Polling conducted by the Institute of European